TMI Blog2021 (4) TMI 302X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion Act are not mutually exclusive. Even in a case where Section 14 does not strictly apply, the principles of Section 14 can be invoked to grant relief to an applicant under Section 5 of the Limitation Act by purposively construing sufficient cause . It is well settled that omission to refer to the correct section of a statute does not vitiate an order. The documents on record referred by Learned Counsel for Bank show series of Acknowledgments of debts by Corporate Debtor since date of NPA which extend period of limitation if Section 18 of Limitation Act is considered. Considering the Judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in Sesh Nath Singh, OTS Proposals and Settlement requests and balance sheet referred, it is not found that the A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 10 and the Application under Section 7 came to be filed on 06th January, 2020 and thus the Application was time-barred in view of the Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The Learned Counsel submits that Impugned Order with regard to the Limitation while dealing with Point No. ii referred to the SARFAESI Proceedings which was initiated and demand notice which was issued by the Financial Creditor. The Adjudicating Authority referred to the proceedings before Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT in short) and referring to the Judgment in the matter of Mobilox Innovations Pvt .Ltd. Vs. Kirusa Software Pvt. Ltd. Civil Appeal No. 9405 of 2017 held the Application under Section 7 to be within limitation. 4. The Learned Counsel for the Respondent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the settlement for request dated 09th August, 2014 at Page 230 to submit that on these various dates, the Corporate Debtor had moved the then Corporation Bank with these proposals which were in the nature of acknowledgment as required under Section 18 of the Limitation Act and these documents read with document at Page 121 dated 18th January, 2017 shows that the Application filed on 06th January, 2020 was within limitation. 6. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that these OTS Proposals and letters were not filed before the Adjudicating Authority. When asked regarding these OTS Proposals and letters, the Learned Counsel for the Appellant refers to Rejoinder (Diary No. 25572) Paragraphs 4-5 to submit that Appellant has denied th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... file an application in writing before relief can be granted under the said section. Had such an application been mandatory, Section 5 of the Limitation Act would have expressly provided so. Section 5 would then have read that the Court might condone delay beyond the time prescribed by limitation for filing an application or appeal, if on consideration of the application of the appellant or the applicant, as the case may be, for condonation of delay, the Court is satisfied that the appellant/applicant had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or making the application within such period. Alternatively, a proviso or an Explanation would have been added to Section 5, requiring the appellant or the applicant, as the case may be, to ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any acknowledgment. 88. An Adjudicating Authority under the IBC is not a substitute forum for a collection of debt in the sense it cannot reopen debts which are barred by law, or debts, recovery whereof have become time barred. The Adjudicating Authority does not resolve disputes, in the manner of suits, arbitrations and similar proceedings. However, the ultimate object of an application under Section 7 or 9 of the IBC is the realization of a debt by invocation of the Insolvency Resolution Process. In any case, since the cause of action for initiation of an application, whether under Section 7 or under Section 9 of the IBC, is default on the part of the Corporate Debtor, and the provisions of the Limi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
